Long Beach Police Shooting Gallery?

The wimps at the Los Angeles CBS station don’t show the moments when Long Beach police open fire on a clearly mentally disturbed woman holding a pistol. And they buried the key fact—the two-hour timeline—in the story. “A perimeter near downtown Long Beach was established shortly after 9:47 a.m. after police received a report of a ‘person with a gun.’ Shortly after, authorities reported that Long Beach Boulevard and Elm Avenue were closed due to an ongoing investigation. It is believed the woman was a patient at a nearby mental health facility and suicidal. ‘The mental evaluation team spoke to the subject for over an hour. During the investigation, the suspect brandished a weapon,’ said Long Beach Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell.” And then they shot (executed?) her. Lots of officers lots of times. Who had lots of time to think of other ways to resolve the situation. But let’s wait for the official investigation . . .

The person was also a mental patient at a nearby hospital. I guess when people get prohibited by councilors, Calli will not only send SWAT teams to impound guns, the will administer “mental health treatment” to cure the person.

This pretty much sums up the problem:
She was a mental patient at a nearby hospital, but she wasn’t IN the hospital.
She was a mental patient at a nearby hospital, but their treatment was obviously less than effective.
She was a mental patient at a nearby hospital, but they probably gave her psychotropic drugs and sent her home. (There is a long history of psychotropic drugs CAUSING suicidal thoughts.)
She was a mental patient at a nearby hospital, but they either did not know she was suicidal, or did not properly monitor her activities.
She was a mental patient at a nearby hospital, but she was able to acquire a pistol and threaten herself and other people and there was NO VIABLE RESPONSE other than to hide in the closet and call SWAT.

At some point people are going to have to realize that “mental patient at a nearby hospital” and “treated for mental disorders” (drugs) are not the same as being cured. We cannot know what torment this woman was in, nor why, but we must admit that the current societal considerations are about as effective as witch doctors unless the patent is continually supervised and drugged to mask the symptoms of a mental disease the shrinks have no slightest clue how to cure.

Was this person mentally ill? Most likely. However, in the future when there is a far leftist, anti-gunner in charge with a leftist, unchecked anti-gun Congress at his beckon call, what would stop from from saying that “All gun owners must be mentally ill for even wanting a gun”? Therefor, you are now considered mentally ill and deserve the SWAT Team with REAL assault rifles to ventilate you abdomen for you. After all, they were just “there to help the people who were afraid this person (i.e. you) was going to shoot them.”

Standard practice here. If a regular citizen shoots someone threatening with a gun, they’re a hero. If a cop does it, it must be murder.

It’s (usually) sad when someone dies like this, especially someone with emotional problems who is basically committing suicide by cop. But the failures happened long before they obtained a gun and brandishing it, walking towards police.

Sounds like you are the one generalizing. Remember a few facts. Average citizens are not paid nor equipped to deal with armed, possibly dangerous persons. If they are threatened and defend themselves, they are working for their own good. Law enforcement is paid to do the public good. They are equipped with suitable equipment to provide a larger degree of safety for putting themselves in harm’s way. Calling out the SWAT team every time someone is seen with a revolver is asinine. Like swatting flies with a flamethrower.

Hannibal, while you may be superficially correct in your assertion, I believe the implication here was on police over-reaction to the threat, not that they “murdered” the woman. She obviously was a threat to others in the vicinity, although a two hour stand-off seems to argue against her motive being anything other than to create enough of a threat to get herself taken seriously and shot (suicide by cop). The outcry here is that when the time to shoot finally came too many people (cops) were poised, ready, and did in fact shoot, which seems to be over-kill. (I hate that term-if something is worth killing it’s worth over-killing, unless you plan to eat it.)

So the complaint is not so much that the cops had no effective response other than to shoot the woman, but rather that so many of them actually shot (at) the woman. Some slight difference there.

I haven’t noticed the ‘hero’ theme, nor are most LEO shootings highlighted and criticized. I found the Dearborn Heights shooting (‘accidental’ firing of shotgun aimed at face) a bizarre fail on the homeowner’s part. And said so. In today’s news, for example, a police shooting of a 14 year old in Battle Creek, MI, appears totally appropriate. And note, they only fired one shot and reassessed. That’s cool-headed policing.

What is objectionable are shootings in which time was on the side of the police, or where the pace of the confrontation was controllable by the police. What is objectionable are fusillades when they are not needed. We have paid generously for the equipment which obviates the need to put 17 rounds downrange on a woman 30 yards away with a handgun, and whose reflexes were clearly dulled, and who hadn’t pulled the trigger. The idea that the only two responses are “hide” or “shoot her full of holes” is absurd.

The problem is that too many LEO incidents seem to show officers thinking “when may I shoot?” instead of “when must I shoot?” The obvious tactic of multiple shooters firing multiple shots is an adaptation to cover the shooters, not the citizens. Designate a shooter when the circumstances allow it.

With so many readers having combat experience, the frequent refrain of “well I’d like to see you cope with the situation, Mr. Armchair Critic” is a bit tiresome. A few of us have been shot or hit with flak. Many of us have watched squad or flight mates die, while sent to fight people 7,000 miles from any US border. Taking a bit of risk and using a bit of brain to save the life of an ill woman here at home doesn’t seem so much to ask.

Reading this site really makes me appreciate my local PD. Input from educated citizens not frozen out of the process has a lot to do with that good PD. SOP’s matter. Training matters. Careful hiring practices matter.

Where was the threat? You are an idiot if you watch that video and think that justifies the use of deadly force? But you probably thought the LAPD looking for Christopher Dorner and shot up the wrong make truck, wrong color, wrong race occupants, wrong gender, wrong age.

This is absolutely true. However, when a law enforcement officer accepts the job he KNOWS that there is a possibility that he might be in a situation where he could be shot, that’s why he carries a gun. This is NOT some secret the recruiter forgot to mention.

To do the job properly requires that at some point you may be in a situation where you could get shot. If a LEO balks when that time comes, then he needs to re-evaluate his career choice.

That said, in many cases, including this one, I think the suspect may have inevitably been shot since that was the outcome they were hoping for. The question then becomes, why were so many LEOs put in harm’s way rather than just securing a perimeter and letting only a few officers confront the actual threat? It’s not like she was going to slip away into the night.

Except this firing line had several hours on scene etc. There wasn’t anything a fraction of a second about it. The commanders on scene had poor control of the situation. There was no need for 100 cops doing a mag dump. Why hadn’t they deployed other measures in a several hour period?

this doesn’t apply here. These are cops. Not citizens. They have multiple assets at their disposal. Less lethal weapons. Tear gas, etc. But that’s a lot of manpower standing around for 2 hours. Its expensive. I guess all you get is two hours before they pop you. Meter is running baby.

“The meter is running” seems to be a theme. The incident last week in Springfield, VA, had that feeling, too. Despite no family members left in the house, despite no gun visible in his hand, one LEO moved in closer and closer. The man “moved his hand down from the top of the screen door” so the guy moving in shot him. And the only reason they had SWAT and a sniper on the lawn? His wife said he had a gun. On him? No.

The advanced less lethal, riot shields, armored cars, foam, pepper, nets, are all a waste if they aren’t used to spare life when there is clearly time. Just working the suspect up until they make some vague move, then shooting, is barbaric….when there is time and a perimeter.

It’s worse than that. The woman was moving slowly as a tortoise. She never raised the (BB) gun to eye level. There were more than twelve LEO’s on the scene.

But this is the really pathetic point: As she slowly staggers forward, gun at waist level and to the side, they shoot at least twelve rounds. The woman is down. ONLY THEN do they bring forward the handgun-bullet-proof barrier, as seven of them slowly march forward behind the barrier. WHAT? Why wasn’t that multi-man riot shield out front in the first place? It’s only useful against a perp lying on the ground? Why was there no less lethal shotgun behind that barrier? Why was there no advance from behind?

…until the last line I thought you were be satirical of the folks who talk big about shooting the gun out of someone’s hand. But nope, you’re one of them!

This person has a gun. How do you think she’ll react to being shot by a dart? Are you confusing darts for star trek phasers, in thinking they work immediately or work perfectly to incapacitate but not kill? Do you realize that with that bulky clothes, the kind of dart vets use probably wouldn’t work at all? You don’t bring a toy to a gun fight, and it’s a gun fight when the other person is holding a gun.

Jesus, the things people think up when they’re watching youtube safely in an armchair.

I’m with you, Hannibal… I’m rarely one to stand up and justify a police shooting but suggesting this individual should have been tranq’d is as absurd as suggesting the cops should shoot people in the leg to “incapacitate” them.

This was simply a situation that was not going to end well, no matter how you cut it.

Hey, man – don’t dump on me. I’m no expert on animal control. All I’m trying to say is that with this much time to choose a course of action, it seems they could have found some better way to deal with this situation.

And when I say “why not?”, I mean it! There have been enough situations of this sort that I would hope that someone, somewhere, is at least working on a better response than killing these unfortunates.

Hell, how about high pressure fire hoses for Christ’s sake? Gas? Drop a big net from a copter ( I know, I’m getting silly with that one)?

Tranq darts don’t take immediate effect. The person brandishing the firearm would have plenty of time to dump a magazine into the police/bystanders. A Tazer might have been a good choice, but who knows. It doesn’t really seem like a bad shoot to me other than the obvious overkill.

Tazer’s have similar problems, namely short range and the ability of heavy clothing to stop the darts from reaching the suspect. There’s also no guarantee the suspect won’t art shooting when they begin to spasm.

I guess the idea of even waiting until the person actually AIMED their gun at someone was out of the question? It isn’t like they didn’t have the person outgunned by a huge factor. Saying a stray bullet may have hurt a bystander is comical, how many of their shots missed, or went through and ricocheted and endangered bystanders? Or do cop bullets magically not hurt bystanders these days?

Here’s the real question – Who the hell is in charge of this cluster -f, I mean scene? Seems like in one of those squad cars someone must have had an AR. Yes, it’s MMQ, but a lesson for another day. Supervisor designates ONE cop with an AR to cover the suspect, all other officers stand down unless he misses his shot. When and if deadly force is required one or two shots from the AR do the trick, not dozens from all directions that get ALL of those officers off the streets and facing psych evals and investigations. Just sayin’, from an outsider looking in.

Also, it’s not easy to get the right dosage of tranquilizer. Rendering someone unconscious like that is a very precise process, and anasthesia is very close to being dead (that’s why anesthesiologists get paid mad money). It’s not like in the movies where one dose can take tranquilize (but not kill) both an elephant and a 90 pound woman.

The liberals waylay us daily with the claim that California is the epitome of enlightenment that every other state should emulate, so I am always skeptical about anything in the news about California. With that being said, after watching the video, there is not enough there to say one way or another if that was justified or not. In my opinion, this new tactic among police where all responding officers seem compelled to empty their firearms on a suspect is a mistake, for it always appears excessive regardless of the circumstances of the shooting.

I suspect that in this case the shooting was justifiable and will be ruled as such. The question based on relative threat is were so many shots necessary?

I recall a case several years ago in Florida where police were hunting a known cop-killer. The threat level was obviously VERY high, especially for the police trying to apprehend him, since it was know he had killed a policeman and threatened to kill more. He was cornered in a field hiding behind a fallen log and engaged the officers who fired back and killed him.

A reporter at the scene asked the Sheriff, I believe, “Why did the officers shoot 100 times?” Obviously implying over-kill. The Sheriff replied, “They ran out of ammunition.”

I see an armed person advancing towards police, who is told several times to “put the gun down” and does not do so. Everyone here talks about how they are ready to defend themselves, and then eviscerate police for doing the same.
A crazy person with a gun is definitely a threat at 15-20 yards.

Now, before this point, I certainly don’t see why a patrol dog could not have been used, or a less lethal shotgun if it was available. I can’t speak as to what was screwed up prior to this incident.

My second thought as well. Fire a hair missile (dog) at her. Yes, the dog may get shot. No time off, no IA, and very little public outcry.
First thought was bean bag by that closest guy.
Taser is out of the question.
Why have the tools and not use them?

I would love to see the day in California when a dozen or so legally armed citizens took it upon themselves to band together and deal with a threat such as his. The outcome may have been the same, but isn’t that what this poor, anguished woman was hoping for?

In sudden combat, I don’t begrudge anyone (police officer or otherwise) from using a firearm and pulling the trigger.

This was not sudden combat. It was a long standoff. Why not walk up to the person behind a full body ballistic shield and use a taser or beanbag round from a shotgun?

If I were on the scene, I would have no qualms walking up to the subject behind a ballistic shield and deploying a taser. And if the subject suddenly rushed me — converting this situation to sudden combat — I have no doubt that other officers with long guns would stop the subject/attacker.

Ehh… at the time of the shooting, the firearm was not pointed at anyone (it was pointed to the building to the persons right), they were walking slowly and made no outright aggressive movements. In the 5 feet the person walked, no one can honestly say they were in more danger than just 5 seconds prior.

Oh, binary thinking. “Officer Safety” and maximum force are the prime directives for the state’s festooned “heroes”. They love being dramatic. Was the shooting justified? Probably. Was it avoidable by changing the response to the situation. Probably.

Tear gas, water cannon and flash bangs would have disoriented or injured the woman, not disarmed or incapacitated her. Flash bangs are also meant for confined spaces (anyone who has experience with them feel free to correct me).

And the fact that it took two hours implies they were at least trying to talk her down.

They already spent an hour talking to her, and had determined they couldn’t get her to drop the gun and come forward. Indeed, they knew she was mentally incapacitated, unable to comply. They had two more hours to get shields and less lethal in place, and plan a distraction as one or two LEO’s downed her from behind.

Flashbangs are certainly useful outside as disorienting and distracting devices. I’ve thrown the military version, concussion grenades. They work. There were no brains at work in this operation. The on-scene officer-in-charge should be fired. (We routinely fire attorneys who screw up. Why should it be any different in the police business? Because of that pension thing? Most attorneys have only this pension, the one they fund themselves. The pension argument doesn’t wash with me. If the person cared about his job, he would have done his job.)

If it’s changeable, how can it also be justified? Other than the woman not obeying the order to stop, what other actions did she take? I lose sight of her right hand, but it looks like she’s pointing the weapon up. And, if it was a two hour standoff, how did no one think to use something in the less than lethal golf bag? Didn’t the taxpayers have to provide these things so the cops would have more options?

Find out during the first hour of negotiating that the woman is Governor Moonbeams niece, or Feinstein’s cousin, and you’d see a whole change in reactions. It’s fairly wretched to see the attitude that “she’s just a crazy person, maybe a drug addict, so screw her.” Yep. That’s it. Shoot the ones who aren’t related. But not your demented dad, right?

Dan the ‘expert’ huh? We’re you there? Are you a police officer? Have YOU ever had to use a firearm to defend yourself or another? If not, then don’t spew “bad shoot” when you have nothing more than a ghetto rat video to base your opinions off of.

JB, is your point that a video taken by a non-ghetto-rat, but rather by an upstanding member of the city council, would show different facts? Would it show that the large multi-man shield came out before the shooting instead of after? Would it show the presence of less lethal options? Would it reveal more advanced tactics? Would we perceive an effective commander at the scene taking advantage of the hours to set up a capture? Would a better angle show she was moving faster? If the sound track was pure Sheryl Crow, would it make a difference?

On a completely unrelated note….. aren’t the cops supposed to be highly trained with their firearms? Aren’t they supposed to be ‘crack shots’ capable of taking down the bad guys in ways that us mere mortals could never do because we would never be able to get the level and kinds of training they get?

So why did it take so many officers so many shots to take down one crazy person who seemed to be doing nothing more than commit suicide by cop?

The main training cops get is obedience training so that when they are ordered to bust down doors of families because of suspicion of possession of a plant they will obey without hesitation. If the order ever comes to take our guns away, there will be no shortage of American Nazi soldiers to obey.

For all the ‘internet bold’ police bashers out there; why don’t you all wear a badge & go out into this very dangerous world police it? Unless you have served as a full time LEO or at least have had to use lethal force @ some time in your life you have NO right to belittle, second guess or criticize the LBPD. You weren’t there, so wait for the incident report & the DA to publish their findings before the ignorant judgements & name calling!

In my experience, I’d be willing to bet that this ‘mental’ subject wast some poor mentally ill person dealt a bad hand by nature. Generally they are career drug users that have fried their brains & are just flat crazy! Furthermore, has anyone realized this may be a “suicide by cop” incident? The woman very likely forced their hand.

Next time any of you sissies need a cop for a minor or major issue, don’t bother. Just deal with your own problems. Wish you luck…

Oh please! How many dozens of cops doing mag dumps does it take in a 3 hour period do deal with a mental patient? Furthermore, cops don’t have a “right to be a cop” and if they are to chicken shit to be one, then read gas or water meters instead. People are just evaluating this particular situation, and the LB police couldn’t handle it.

“Don’t criticize if you’ve never done it?” Really? Does that only apply to cops, or am I also not allowed to say my mechanic did a shitty job if I’ve never changed my own oil? At what point would I be allowed to question medical malpractice? Is it enough to have taken Tylenol, or do I have to remove my own appendix first?

I’m not sure I read the same thread as you did, most of the comments were along the lines of “good shoot”…and at least three of the people commenting are LEOs as far as I know…It’s a little early in the day to be going all internet rage on TTAG.

With all the videos of bad cop shoots and other misconduct on youtube, we might just be better off dealing with things ourselves.

Why would I call the police if they are just going to roll up to my house, break down my door, shoot my dog, then harass me for 30 minutes before arresting me because they don’t like me. There are a few level headed cops out there. Maybe even a few that frequent this site. However, there are far too many hot headed cops that would rather arrest or shoot first, then let someone else sort it out later.

Cynicism aside… I think bad cops think that the world is out to get them, but don’t realize that by being proactive enforcers of the law, the reverse is true. Thanks to know-it-all legislatures, there are so many laws/ordinances (too vague or otherwise bullsh**) on the books that it is pretty hard to exist without crossing some level of government or doing something that a proactive cop construes as an infraction. As long as stupid laws exist (illegal to throw a Frisbee on certain beaches in California without permission from the lifeguard) and police enforce them, the police will be on the wrong side of most discussions here and everywhere else.

Cops may not all be the sharpest tools in the shed, but I think that it’s often the local legislature that turns them in to unchecked douchebags. With bullsh** laws and overzealous police, we subjects grow more cynical, local government sees this as prelude to unrest, and the cycle continues…

As previously noted the resident “YouTube niggah” hero is very quick to MMQB the cops. Why didn’t our local ghetto mental health pro get his happy ass out there & negotiate a peaceful conclusion to this incident????

Oh, he wouldn’t! He’d rather make his abject ignorance known to the world by cowering in a building & filming the incident with his ghetto rat commentary.

“The internet doesn’t make you stupid, it make your stupidity more accessible to others”. Thank you YouTube for degenerating Americans even further into psychiatric oblivion.

I don’t think the video is up on this site as anti-police propaganda. It’s up to consider how a shooting unfolded. Are you saying that, given the same resources, you too would have commanded the patrolmen to completely skip a distract-and-tackle-from-behind or less lethal shotgun take-down? Some heavy distance pepper? Forget the courts, what’s your coaching opinion?

As for the ghetto-rat bit, what if his accent was Swedish or Argentinian? Chinese?

That wasn’t a lot of rounds fired. It was quick & didn’t appear to be every cop firing. So, relax folks. The Hollywood one shot kill is a myth folks. Two or three officers firing sounds a a lot worse than it is.

Seriously, what do all the whiners want the cops to do? Just let the nut wander around Long Beach with a gun?? Don’t forget the nut forced the issue.

Matt in FL, I’ll say it again; if you’ve never served in LE, the military or another profession that requires the lethal use of arms, then YOU have no right to MMQB the after action incident based on a bad angle, long distance crappy video by some two bit ghetto rat.

JB,
Sorry, but I think you are wrong. For arguments sake, I am going to assume you are or were a police officer. Well, I am prior military and have 10 years in law enforcement. Based on your earlier comments I meet your criteria to be a Monday Morning Quarterback, but I don’t think it matters. It shouldn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.

You need to remember that we are public servants; which means we answer to the public. Do I hate when people bash the cops or the military? Yes I do. Do I think it is necessary? Yes I do. When people make general statements bashing cops I just ignore them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Unfortunately there have been to many bad interactions with police that make every officer look like a bully, oppressor of freedom, storm trooper, etc… You trying to argue with everyone and say they can’t do something because they haven’t walked in their boots only makes it worse.

I think the perfect end of the argument is that police officers can be brought in front of a Grand Jury to see if something will go to trial; like a bad shooting or excessive force. Guess what a Grand Jury is comprised of? CITIZENS!!! Sure, some of them may have worn some type of uniform, but the odds and jury selection process stack the deck against a jury of all former police officers.

Sorry, JB. Your “if you haven’t done it, you can’t criticize it” attitude is problematic. A human life was taken. It was probably justified from a pure legal point of view. But there may have been a better way.

I’ll grant you that there is a huge amount of unknown in this and almost any shooting situation. I’ve worn the crossed rifles of an infantryman (Gulf War). I (and the vast majority of my battalion) never fired a shot. The most annoying part of that operation was the neo-law enforcement rules-of-engagement post cease fire.

In this case, what we do know, via the video and text reports, is that there was a lot of time for less than lethal options (a dog?, gas?) to be considered. I’d like to see the report.

JB, Your comment about “unless you’ve been there…” does not hold water. This argument has been fielded on any number of topics where supposed experts have been called to task for their actions and been found wanting. It was suggested that no one who was not military should question what the military does. Really, what about civilian over-sight of the standing military? What about being Commander in Chief if you’ve never served? Is there a requirement in the Constitution I missed that says the POTUS has to be prior-service?

It is not only appropriate, but necessary and important, especially in cases where a life is taken, that every citizen be allowed to come to their own conclusion as to what happened and why if only because they can perhaps see themselves in a similar confrontation with law enforcement at some point and want to ensure a reasonable outcome.

When “civilians” hire men (fallible like the rest of us) and authorize them to patrol their streets carrying deadly weapons and with the authority to make decisions as to when to use those weapons, OF COURSE it is the right and duty of each and every one of us to evaluate the circumstances when these men shoot someone. Many of us may be totally wrong, or biased, or both, but some may be correct and at any rate it may be valuable as a “teaching moment” to ensure that the response was actually correct, or that training for a different outcome in the future may be in order.

From the outside it looks to me like this could have been handled better. It may still have ended in that woman’s death, I have no problem with that, but the episode definitely had the appearance of Police State over-reaction and that is what has everybody so concerned, IMO.

JB, LEO and military are 2 separate things. There is a big difference in setting up a perimeter in Falujah and setting up a perimeter to deal with an escaped mental patient. If you can’t tell the difference between a black ops and LE activity, you need to reassess your opinions.

Actually, the mental health evaluation team should have been able to figure out if it was an airsoft or bb gun at the point they were for 1.5 hours. Why were the cops behind the line mag dumping during contagious fire?

News networks don’t like to show people at the time of death on air. Also it’s sad the police didn’t use some sort of less than lethal force before riddling this trouble woman full of lead, but hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to these things.

Forget about “was it a good or bad shoot” until the report comes out. What could be done better the next time, given what is already known?

There was a commander on the scene. Her/his job is to quickly think through the possible resolutions, and to command the officers on the scene to follow her/his orders. Three hours is a long time. The commander on the scene could certainly have planned a take-down during the first hour.

We know from the video that the officers had a large pistol-bullet-proof riot shield, and additionally I can assume that the officers holding it had their duty vests on. It would not have been a particularly dangerous tactic to have three LEOs advance on the woman slowly behind the shield on a path 45 degrees to the sidewalk (to prevent LEO crossfire…. while another LEO positioned himself behind the two cars.

The officer in position behind the cars could advance from behind quickly and quietly, pistol or shotgun up while the woman’s attention is held by the advancing riot-shield holders. Taking her down without shooting…advancing on her from behind starting from less than 22 feet away ….wouldn’t require unusual skill. The designated shooter, if any, should have been the officer advancing on her from behind. That is the point of approaching from angles.

This is just another situation in which the overdone preference for carbines and pistols has pushed aside a highly suitable and flexible weapon, the shotgun. I can only guess that lawyering has made the use of less lethal shotgun ammunition (which occasionally is lethal) fall out of use. Great, now we have ‘shooting to kill’ because occasionally ‘less lethal’ is lethal. Huge mistake.

I’ve seen my local PD disarm (take down) an armed mentally ill person with similar tactics (distract and rush) using fewer personnel. It isn’t…rocket-surgery. It just requires motivation to spare a life. At any point in the take-down the women could have been shot if she herself pulled the trigger, or even took real aim. That’s what the angle is for. The LEO behind the cars would have been shooting from less than 7 yards…

Not a possibility but a guarantee. The “Us vs Them” mentality extends to their puppies, which I can’t exactly fault them for, given the fact that I would smoke any dumb s*** that hurt or killed my dog.

I have never seen such terrified police, ever. What a bunch of pussies! It is no wonder they shot her if that is how they react to someone who is already dead. When did the safety of police officers become more important than that of the average citizen? Cowards.

I think the situation is a bit different than your normal standoff due to the subject being a mental patient. The hard thing in dealing with the mentally ill is the way their attitude and aggression can change with no advance warning.

I think that if she “eloped” from a mental health facility and was off her meds, I doubt that she’d be able to focus long enough to hit anyone deliberately even if she fired. And since she was under observation for TWO hours I doubt that there was any lack of awareness on LEs part as to her capabilities and intentions. If she wanted “suicide by cop,” she got her wish. Many times over.

She was shot 2 or 3 times, and she was holding a BB gun. What ever happened to non lethal bean bag weapons? Since 9/11/01 over 5,000 civilians deaths have been recorded by police departments across this country. Recent events in North Carolina and Texas have cops shooting/killing unarmed civilians because they are black or deaf, and UN-armed. We are swiftly turning into a police state.

You are making the assumption the person was even close to rational behavior and given the person was apparently an escape from a hospital, that is unlikely. Furthermore, I would expect a L.E. Agency such as Long Beach to be able to do something over the course of several hours rather than bringing in dozens of officers for a magazine dump. These clowns should only be allowed 1 bullet in their shirt pocket a la Barney Fife.

Clearly some brandishing going on. Not sure what the words were on the street, but I don’t see the victim actually threatening anyone, as in aiming with the intent to shoot. The victims weapon was never discharged intentionally or unintentionally correct?

So at what point do the police feel justified in using deadly force when the victims actions were not actually causing harm to anyone? Is it the implied threat of harm? Does brandishing equate a death sentence? How did it go from zero to dead in .5 seconds?

How long until an intentional\unintentional display of a gun by a legally armed citizen ends up in a death sentence for said citizen? The incident in Wisconsin springs to mind.

From what I saw in the video the “mental subject” with the gun, brought it up to waist level, started walking towards police, and was waiving the gun around. they had tried to negotiate for at least an hour from what was reported above.

the general rule is Taser’s and less leathal force does not replace leathal force when leathal force is nessecary. Tasers cause involentary muscle contractions, which could cause her to pul the trigger in the gun, then the police would be responsible for where that bullet ended up. Pepper spray can have a similar outcome. that stuff isn’t a magical fix to instantly drop a person and make them revert to the fetal position sucking their thumb. I’ve been tasered and pepper sprayed and have tasered and pepper sprayed peoples before so I can say this from experience. One mental subject who wanted to jump from an over pass just stood there waiving his arms yelling “stop it stop it” as he reached back and pulled the probes out of his back.

from what I saw she was a credible threat, they had tried to negotiate, had already threatened someone with the gun, and started advancing on the police while armed…. I’m having a hard time finding a way to not call this a justified shooting,

When the cops shoot someone and we question it, we’re told not to second-guess the police. Yet when an armed citizen shoots someone, they get second-guessed by police, prosecutors, the MSM, the Democrats and their running dogs and everybody else on the face of planet Earth.

The woman moved extremely slowly. In the moment when police opened fire there was no imminent threat but rather much (!) time for alternative measures.
This mission was a fiasco of a bunch of amateurs!

Yeah I’m a bit shocked at how many shots were fired. I think it was about a 5 second volley. Two rounds (since I believe many are trained to ‘double tap’) per officer.. 7 officers = minimum of 14 shots (Mind you, I didn’t actually count them, they are just assumed numbers.)

It also seemed like one or two rounds were fired after she fell out of sight (assumed to be on the ground.) So add shooting someone after the threat was neutralized. That’s excessive and uncalled for.

All of that leads me to think after the first shot was fired, everyone else just wanted to get some rounds down range.
I suppose if you have homicidal urges… getting a job as a police officer might be right up your ally.

Oh yeah. Wow. She’s not “pointing it” at anyone, and at the time of the first shot, she appears to be starting to look down at the ground, like you’d look for where your next step is gonna go. That’s pretty ridiculous, in my opinion.